[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Isn't that what the 'probabtionary' period is for?

And if I give you a probationary period but 3 months later I decide I just don't want you because I don't like having you around?

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Before I go to work for a company I research them thoroughly.

In a situation like that I would be negotiating a signing bonus, guarantee or relo package.

Right now the major oil companies are offering $50,000 sign on bonus for a chemE or petroleum engineer with a 3.5 or better. That or they'll zero out your student loans. That easily covers a 12 month lease.

Damn! Im in the wrong business.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Damn! Im in the wrong business.

And that is the point I made earlier about "creating value".
It's just the way business works. Really.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Slug71

As for the other. The employee should be warned and given a chance to correct his ways. Else bye bye.

Everyones opinions seem so black or white. No middle ground.

There isn't any middle ground.

Either people are allowed to make decisions within their own private business, or they're not. It's binary.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

There isn't any middle ground.

Either people are allowed to make decisions within their own private business, or they're not. It's binary.

Absolutely.
What is difficult to understand about this?

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by arclight610

I suppose. But if I fire an employee the day before they are set to retire, I've already received the maximum amount of utility from them. I "promised" them retirement after X years of service, and they continued to stay for X years - 1 day in hopes of being able to retire. So in essence, I can just "use up" my employees and throw them away when I don't want to meet my end of the bargain.

A lawyer would love that one. Plus it would have a ripple effect in the company. They might save one pension but then they would loose it all with training people to replace those who leave.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Would only work once. Yes, it sucks for those 28 folks, but what would happen the next year is that if an employer required someone to move, they'd have to offer in writing that they'll cover the relocation expenses and whatever fees are incurred in breaking a lease if things don't work out.

You can play "what if" forever. I can make up a dozen scenarios where employees screw employers. The fact is that no system is perfect.

Allow employees to quit. Allow employers to fire people. That's the only way to have a truly equal balance of power.

Now, it won't be equal for everyone--the more replaceable the employee (ie, less skill / experience required to do the job) the more likely the employer is to be willing to fire, and vice versa. But that's just the way life works.

Its not truly balanced though since we have unions.

I see all these lazy asses that is near impossible to fire and then my situation comes along.
I would rather have mandatory warnings in place giving an employee the chance to correct an issue management has and see the unions disappear.

Theft, sexual harassment, financial hard ship on the employer etc. would still be grounds to term an employee immediately.
Although, financial hardship relates more to a lay-off than being terminated.

Most employers give a 90 day evaluation period anyway.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Like I said, I don't know you. I'm sure you're a nice guy.

But the fact remains, just because they didn't tell you a reason doesn't mean there wasn't one. And maybe the reason doesn't have anything to do with you.

Employers and employees should be required to do whatever they agree to in writing, and nothing more. If you think an employer should be required to give a warning before firing, try and negotiate that into your contract on your next job.

If you have the scarcity power to demand that, then they'll do it for you. If you don't, well... that's how the cookie crumbles. Put up, find another opportunity, or start your own business.

Appreciate your feedback.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

A lawyer would love that one. Plus it would have a ripple effect in the company. They might save one pension but then they would loose it all with training people to replace those who leave.

Excellent point! So no laws or unions required. The market would discourage such behavior.

Nice catch CACOP!

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Atlas

And if I give you a probationary period but 3 months later I decide I just don't want you because I don't like having you around?

Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Absolutely.
What is difficult to understand about this?

I understand it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it 100%.

[NeverMore1701]

OP, I'm guessing that you've never had hiring and firing as part of your job?

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Thats a personal opinion and is borderline discrimination.

If the employee works. Keep him.

There is no law forbidding "discrimination" as such.

There are laws which forbid [employment] discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, or religion.

Originally Posted by Slug71

Thats a personal opinion...

Of course it is.
As the owner, my opinion is all that counts here.


You miss my point.
If I hire you and you pass some "probationary period" then great.
What if you simply fail to develop in the position as well as I expected you to?

What if, in my judgment you will never develop to provide me with what I feel my business needs? Of what value then is "a warning?".

Must I warn you, then wait for an additional period to find that I was correct, that you just don't have what it takes, no matter your best intention and efforts?
What if I simply do not have the time for that?
What if my business interests dictate that I act NOW to acquire the person I need to do the job?

Why can I not be free to act in the way that is in the best interest of my business?
My business is there to make a profit for me, not to provide you with employment.


Employers having freedom to hire and fire as they see fit is what creates the possibility of a strong business which can then survive in the marketplace and grow to provide employment for the most people.


What you are looking for is "fair".
Believe me, in the real world you aren't going to find it, except occasionally. Even then, don't bet on it always being that way.


Respectfully I gotta ask, you're pretty young, aren't you?
Twenties perhaps?

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by NeverMore1701

OP, I'm guessing that you've never had hiring and firing as part of your job?

Firing was part of this job though i've never had to it myself. I did do an investigation on an employee which got fired and I was present in the termination of the employee.

[Hawkeye16]

At will employment will only be viewed as fair by those that are worth keeping around.

It's just not plausible to force an employer to keep a crap employee. I mean, look at the mess the public education system is right now.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Atlas

There is no law forbidding "discrimination" as such.

There are laws which forbid [employment] discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, or religion.



Of course it is.
As the owner, my opinion is all that counts here.


You miss my point.
If I hire you and you pass some "probationary period" then great.
What if you simply fail to develop in the position as well as I expected you to?

What if, in my judgment you will never develop to provide me with what I feel my business needs? Of what value then is "a warning?".

Must I warn you, then wait for an additional period to find that I was correct, that you just don't have what it takes, no matter your best intention and efforts?
What if I simply do not have the time for that?
What if my business interests dictate that I act NOW to acquire the person I need to do the job?

Why can I not be free to act in the way that is in the best interest of my business?
My business is there to make a profit for me, not to provide you with employment.


Employers having freedom to hire and fire as they see fit is what creates the possibility of a strong business which can then survive in the marketplace and grow to provide employment for the most people.


What you are looking for is "fair".
Believe me, in the real world you aren't going to find it, except occasionally. Even then, don't bet on it always being that way.


Respectfully I gotta ask, you're pretty young, aren't you?
Twenties perhaps?

32.

Yeh I think a warning is fair. The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there. While not your responsibility, those commitments could be related to the job(car, relocation...).

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

At will employment will only be viewed as fair by those that are worth keeping around.

It's just not plausible to force an employer to keep a crap employee. I mean, look at the mess the public education system is right now.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Agreed.

Though, I believe I was worth keeping.
I saved and made that company a lot of money.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Yeh I think a warning is fair.

What an employee thinks is "fair" is only relevant to the extent that the employee can get the employer to agree.

The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there.

So what?

I have a child support payment I have to make every month. How is that my boss's problem? My own personal finances are my own personal business.

If I had to relocate for a job, I'd either find a way to have the job cover it (which I could do if I had scarcity power--"I'll only come work for you if you'll guarantee my lease"), or I'd accept the risk.

That's just how life works. There's risk in everything, including having a job. You're trying to push all of the risk on the employer, and what ends up happening is that employers hire fewer people. Hiring becomes too risky for them. What happens in the end is fewer jobs for everyone.

The best answer is always freedom: in this case, freedom for both parties involved in an employment contract to do as they've agreed to do.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Though, I believe I was worth keeping.

I'll be blunt: whoever signs your paycheck disagrees with you.

Now, maybe you're right. Maybe he's right. But his opinion is the only one that matters.

If you're a good employee, you should be able to find another job. If the boss is an idiot who fires people for no reason, eventually his business will go under.

That's how the universe works. As soon as you start trying to put "rules" on it, you make it less efficient.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Slug71

32.

Yeh I think a warning is fair. The employee may have made financial commitments during his employment there. While not your responsibility, those commitments could be related to the job(car, relocation...).

Again, you are expecting it all to be "fair".
It isn't and it isn't going to be so.

Actually, I don't have a business myself, at least not in the sense that you mean.
The business I do though, I do specifically because it doesn't require employees, which was always one of my primary criteria.

Regardless, to survive a business owner must be free to choose employee based on his/her interests.
Again, businesses exist to make a profit for the owner, not to provide employment to anyone.

Trust me, I've been "fired" if you want to think of it that way more times than you probably ever will.

What did I do about it? I went to their competitors and presented to them my ability to help them make a profit.
I demonstrated my ability and willingness to create value.
It's the only thing that ever got me paid. It's the only thing I ever expect to get me paid.

[NeverMore1701]

Originally Posted by Slug71

Firing was part of this job though i've never had to it myself. I did do an investigation on an employee which got fired and I was present in the termination of the employee.

So no. Believe you me, things are very different on the other side of the desk.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

What an employee thinks is "fair" is only relevant to the extent that the employee can get the employer to agree.



So what?

I have a child support payment I have to make every month. How is that my boss's problem? My own personal finances are my own personal business.

If I had to relocate for a job, I'd either find a way to have the job cover it (which I could do if I had scarcity power--"I'll only come work for you if you'll guarantee my lease"), or I'd accept the risk.

That's just how life works. There's risk in everything, including having a job. You're trying to push all of the risk on the employer, and what ends up happening is that employers hire fewer people. Hiring becomes too risky for them. What happens in the end is fewer jobs for everyone.

The best answer is always freedom: in this case, freedom for both parties involved in an employment contract to do as they've agreed to do.

I did state that the finances are NOT the employer's responsibility.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

I'll be blunt: whoever signs your paycheck disagrees with you.

Now, maybe you're right. Maybe he's right. But his opinion is the only one that matters.

If you're a good employee, you should be able to find another job. If the boss is an idiot who fires people for no reason, eventually his business will go under.

That's how the universe works. As soon as you start trying to put "rules" on it, you make it less efficient.

Agreed.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by NeverMore1701

So no. Believe you me, things are very different on the other side of the desk.

Oh I don't doubt it.

[Carrys]

Originally Posted by Bill Keith

"AT Will" is code language for screw the employee, don't like what the boss dictates - take a hike.

At "will"?



I just wish someone "would".